It's pathetic but typical, I feel, that the likes of Robert Spencer and Fjordman are denying their connection to Anders Behring Breivik. Of course they are responsible for Breivik's terrorism, just as communist intellectuals are responsible for Islamic terrorism. Someone skipped Aesop:

THE TRUMPETER TAKEN PRISONER.

A Trumpeter, being taken prisoner in battle, begged hard for quarter, declaring his innocence, and protesting that he neither had killed nor could kill any man, bearing no arms but his trumpet, which he was obliged to sound at the word of command.

For that reason, replied his enemies, we are determined not to spare you; for though you yourself never fight, yet with that wicked instrument of yours, you blow up animosity among other people, and so become the cause of much bloodshed.

APPLICATION.

The fomenter of mischief is at least as culpable as he who puts it in execution. A man may be guilty of murder who never has handled a sword or pulled a trigger or lifted up his arm with any mischievous weapon. There is a little incendiary called the tongue, which is more venomous than a poisoned arrow, and more killing than a two-edged sword.

The moral of the Fable therefore is this, that if in any civil insurrection the persons taken in arms against the government, deserve to die, much more do they whose devilish tongues or pens gave birth to the sedition and excited the tumult.

The Fable is also equally applicable to those evil counsellors, who excite corrupt or wicked governments to sap and undermine, and then to overturn the just laws and liberties of a whole people...

Aesop, you see, is above the whole thing. Aesop has no problem with putting the hammer to either seditious rabble-rousers or tyrannical commissars. He accepts it as normal. It is normal. It is war, and only the dead have seen the end of war. The trumpeter, on either side, is a soldier.

This mental habit of separating "democratic dissent" and "violent terrorism," which the Robert Spencers of the world vainly attempt to invoke, and the Noam Chomskys successfully invoke, is one of the most curious psychological tics of the deranged 20th century. Of course its raison d'etre, as a psychological-warfare device, is to forestall the realization that leftist movements achieve power through violence, then demand pacifism of the subjugated.

All power is rooted in violence - even electoral power (to the extent that any such thing still exists). There is most definitely a continuum between democratic activism and civil war. The struggle for power is one. The whole point of the classic picket sign is that the writing on the cardboard sends one message; the two-by-four it's stapled to sends another.

And we can tell that left rules right, because we can see that Noam Chomsky has the right to trumpet his ideas to Osama bin Laden, whereas Robert Spencer does not have the right to trumpet his ideas to Anders Behring Breivik. Did he think he had that right? He had not the might, so he had not the right. He's finding that out right now, as he stares down the barrel of a very angry New York Times.

The trumpeter game, version left, is played ad nauseam in every school system in the world today. All our noble workers and peasants are constantly inculcated with two messages. First, you are the victim of injustice. Second, even though you are the victim of injustice, violence is evil and you must under no circumstances punish the guilty. Human beings are human beings, of course, so the second message doesn't always take. Aww. Another "random attack."

Robert Spencer, Fjordman, and the like - even so perspicacious a conservative as Lawrence Auster - thought they could play this game from the other side. Why? Because they believe in the game. They believe in democratic activism, and they believe they live in a democratic society and have just as much right as anyone at Harvard to toot their trumpets.

They are wrong on every count. What every conservative, moderate or "extreme," needs to learn from ABB is that all action by the powerless, "violent" or "nonviolent," is misguided. It is not wrong, of course, to aspire to power - but action does not create power. Action dissipates power. Until you amass the power to capture the State, refrain from any action whatsoever - certainly including voting. The weak have no right to oppose the strong.

And then there's the "insanity" angle. In case anyone has any doubt about Breivik's sanity, I thought I'd cut and paste the most interesting parts of his manifesto, which are naturally the parts everyone is ignoring. Not the endless Fjordman essays, but his own personal story. Page 1393:

Q: Violent Muslim gangs in European cities are not exactly a new phenomenon. We hear about indigenous European youths getting harassed, beaten, raped and robbed quite often. Tell us about your experiences during your "vulnerable years" (14-18) growing up in the urban multicultural streets of Oslo.

A: Since I was 12 years old I was into the hip-hop movement. For several years I was one of the most notable "hip-hop‘ers" from Oslo‘s West side. It was a lot easier to "gain respect and credibility" in Oslo West because of the demographic factors. Oslo West was the "privileged and predominantly native side" of Oslo with very few immigrants in contrast to the East side which was less peaceful. Graffiti and break dance was an important part of our life at that point. Around 1993 and 1994, at 15, I was the most active tagger (graffiti artist) in Oslo as several people in the old school hip-hop community can attest to.

Our standard "graffiti raid" consisted of going out at night, in groups of 2-3, with our backpacks full of spray cans. We took our bikes and "bombed" city blocks with our tags, "pieces" and crew name all over Oslo. "Morg, Wick and Spok" was everywhere. The fact that hundreds of kids our own age all over Oslo West and even Oslo East looked up to us was one of the driving forces I guess. At that time it felt very rewarding to us. If you wanted girls and respect then it was all about the hip hop community at that time. The more reckless you were the more respect and admiration you gained.

Everyone didn't approve though. The government had a no-tolerance attitude towards graffiti and removed 90% of our "creations" within 48 hours. I remember it was an unofficial war between the hip-hop community and the government and Oslo Sporveier, our public subway company. Two guys I knew, Stian and Charles, a few years older than me were arrested, received gigantic fines and was put in jail.

The hip-hop movement In Norway had its climax around that time, in 92-93. The community was very "politically correct" in nature with close ties to the extreme left groups like SOS Rasisme (an extreme left wing movement) and Blitz (a violent left wing extremist movement). I remember we used to hang out with various people and groups all over Oslo. There were plenty of hip-hop concerts at Blitz and it was at this time that the communist hip-hop group; "Gatas Parlament" was created. It‘s hard to imagine but during this time everyone was into graffiti and hip-hop.[...]We used to hang out with GSV crew, or B-Gjengen as they are popularly called today, a Muslim Pakistani gang, quite violent even back then. "Gang alliances" was a part of our everyday life at that point and assured that you avoided threats and harassment. Alliances with the right people guaranteed safe passage everywhere without the risk of being subdued and robbed (Jizya), beaten or harassed. We had close ties with B-Gjengen (B-Gang) and A-Gjengen (A-Gang), both Muslim Pakistani gangs through my best friend Arsalan who was also a Pakistani.

Even at that time, the Muslim gangs were very dominating in Oslo East and in inner city Oslo. They even arranged "raids" in Oslo West occasionally, subduing the native youths (kuffars) and collecting Jizya from them (in the form of cell phones, cash, sunglasses etc.). I remember they systematically harassed, robbed and beat ethnic Norwegian youngsters who were unfortunate enough to not have the right affiliations. Muslim youths called the ethnic Norwegians "poteter" (potatoes, a derogatory term used by Muslims to describe ethnic Norwegians). These people occasionally raped the so called "potato whores."

In Oslo, as an ethnic Norwegian youth aged 14-18 you were restricted if you didn‘t have affiliations to the Muslim gangs. Your travel was restricted to your own neighbourhoods in Oslo West and certain central points in the city. Unless you had Muslim contacts you could easily be subject to harassment, beatings and robbery. Our alliances with the Muslim gangs were strictly seen as a necessity for us, at least for me. We, however, due to our alliances had the freedom of movement. As a result of our alliances we were allowed to have a relaxing and secure position on the West side of Oslo among our age group. Think of it as being local "warlords" for certain "kuffar areas," which were regulated by the only dominant force, Muslim gangs collaborating with anarcho-Marxist networks.

Many of these groups claim to be tolerant and anti-fascist, but yet, I have never met anyone as hypocritical, racist and fascist as the people whom I used to call friends and allies. The media glorifies them while they wreck havoc across the city, rob and plunder. Yet, any attempts their victims do to consolidate are harshly condemned by all aspects of the cultural establishment as racism and Nazism. I have witnessed the double standards and hypocrisy with my own eyes, it is hard to ignore. I was one of the protected "potatoes," having friends and allies in the Jihadi-racist gangs such as the A and B gang and many other Muslim gangs.

I gradually became appalled by the mentality, actions and hypocrisy of what he calls the "Marxist-Jihadi youth" movement of Oslo disguised under more socially acceptable brands such as: "SOS Rasisme", "Youth against Racism", Blitz who literally hijacked segments of the hiphop movement and used it as a front for recruitment.

I have personally heard of and witnessed hundreds of Jihadi-racist attacks, more than 90% of them aimed at helpless Norwegian youth (who themselves are brought up to be "suicidally" tolerant and therefore are completely unprepared mentally for attacks such as these). This happens while the Marxist networks in the hiphop movement and the cultural establishment silently and indirectly condone it. There is absolutely no political will to ensure that justice is served on behalf of these victims. I remember at one point thinking: "This system makes me sick".

Q: Did you ever contribute to the Muslim atrocities against the indigenous during this period?

A: I saw the "security alliances" in a strictly pragmatical way. They were a necessary evil at that time. During these years I heard of hundreds of cases where ethnic Norwegians were harassed, robbed and beaten by Muslim gangs. This type of behaviour was in fact acts of racism or even based on religious motives (Jihadi behaviour), although I failed to see that connection then due to lack of knowledge about Islam; I saw the practical manifestations and I didn‘t like it at all. The only thing you could do was to take the necessary precautions, create alliances or be subdued by them.

If you made any attempt to create a "Norwegian gang" you would be instantly labelled as a Nazi and face the wrath of everyone, in addition to the Muslim gangs. They, however, were allowed to do anything while being indirectly cheered by society. So in other words, we were trapped between the "wood and the bark". This is still the case in all Western European major cities. They are allowed to consolidate, while we are not.[...]The lefties/hip-hop movement, including the Pakistani gangs and other minority gangs – in cooperation with SOS Rasisme and Blitz were notorically and systematically violent, even racist and discriminating towards ethnic Norwegian youths and anti-immigrant individuals. They abused drugs and many were involved in criminal activity, yet cheered by the media because of their "tolerance" and so called "anti-racist" attitude.

Intolerance, racism and acts of Jihad were tolerated against native Norwegians as the perpetrators were categorised as victims by default (as minorities). They were seldom punished properly.

I remember the occasional crackdowns on right wing youth movements during this period. The police raided them several times, called their parents and invested a lot of resources on squashing the right wing movement all over Norway. Blitz and other extreme left, SOS Rasisme and the hip-hop community on the other hand received public funding. The Blitz house, a building they had occupied a few decades earlier, was subsidised and under protection by the government in Oslo and still is even today. They are often referred to as the "storm troops" of the Norwegian Labour Party. The government subsidy of the apartment block were Blitz resides equates to more than 3 million USD per year alone. The violent Marxist group "SOS Rasisme" receives 2-3 million NOK annually. It‘s disgusting.[...]When my friendship with Arsalan, Jon Trygve and Richard ended, I pursued and further developed a friendship with my old friends Marius and Christen who lived in my neighbourhood. They were to become my new core of close friends. I also befriended myself with a predominantly "ethnic Norwegian" gang from Tåsen in Oslo. Some of them were active on the graffiti front from earlier and that‘s how I first met them. This new "alliance" was also quite useful to create "security" for the rest of our "vulnerable years".

I remember once when a gang of Moroccans came to Tåsen (a predominantly ethnic Norwegian area in the northern part of Oslo) and tried to rob a couple of ethnic local youths. The Moroccan gang was well known for being notoriously violent, having robbed and beaten hundreds of ethnic Norwegian youths all over Oslo. We were at a party at that time. As we heard of the incident we rallied around 20 guys and found the Moroccans near the subway station. We made a deal with them telling them to never come back for their so called "Jizya raids". They never showed their face on Tåsen again as far as I know. Muslim gangs respect people who respect themselves which is why they have no respect for people who are not prepared to use violence.

As time went by and we started high school at around 17-18, the situation changed drastically. The need for security decreased considerably during this period (mostly because we kept to certain areas). Individuals affiliated with the Muslim gangs were academically weak and were basically "left behind" or they selected practical professional studies like mechanics courses or carpentry. Very few of them had the grades to enter any quality schools in Oslo West. In this regard the need for security vanished and a type of academic segregation occurred.

In retrospect, it‘s easy to understand why ethnic Norwegians are fleeing Muslim areas. No one likes to be "subdued" – live in fear, being harassed, beaten and robbed. The Muslim ghettofication process has been ongoing the last 30 years and it will continue until there is close to 100% concentrated Muslim areas in Oslo (the same tendency we see in Paris, London and other large Western European cities). When I was around 15-16 there was only 1 or 2 schools where the majority was non-ethnic Norwegian. Now, 15 years later there are around 50 schools on the East side of Oslo where the majority of students are non-natives and primarily Muslim.

It‘s a miracle how I managed to successfully pass through my "vulnerable years" without being subdued by Muslim gangs even once. I know that there are hundreds, even thousands of incidents per year (I have personally witnessed around 50 incidents) where ethnic Norwegian youths ranging 14-18 are harassed, beaten, raped and robbed and it‘s getting worse every year. I really don‘t envy the new generations and the challenges that are facing them regarding Muslim subjugation.

If ethnic Norwegian youth or other non-Muslims attempt to create gangs of their own (for protection purposes), they are immediately labelled as racists and Nazis. At the same time numerous Muslim gangs commit thousands of racist acts each year against ethnic Norwegians and it‘s either hushed down, ignored and therefore tolerated.

The last 20 years more than 100-200 ethnic Norwegians have been killed by Muslims, a majority by racist or religious/Jihadi motives. Yet, the press are systematically ignoring this and they attempt to link every single incident to non-relevant motives like for example the influence of narcotics/alcohol or blame the accused Muslim of being "psychologically unstable". Norwegian media refuse to face the truth of the matter which is that most of these incidents are religiously and/or racially motivated.

The only incident I can remember where a racist native have killed a non white was the murder of Benjamin Hermansen, who at the age of 15 years, was murdered in Holmlia, in Oslo, Norway. The death was racially motivated. The murder mobilised large parts of the Norwegian population. Throughout the entire country, marches were organised to protest against the murder, with nearly 40,000 people participating in Oslo. The Benjamin Prize was established as a Norwegian prize to counter racism in 2002. The prize is awarded to a school that actively works against racism and discrimination.

Could this have happened if the victim was native and the aggressors were Muslims? No, not in a million years! Our politicians are terrified of offending the Muslim community in any way.

Also, more than 80% of our parliamentarians have never experienced Muslim gangs with all its ugly manifestations. A great majority of them haven‘t even been raised in Oslo or any large European city with small but dominant Muslim minorities. They usually move to Oslo as adults and settle in the non-Muslim areas of the city. Our parliamentarians and media are completely unplugged from reality, they don‘t know what‘s going on or they don‘t want to know. On the other hand, the new generations that have experienced this development the last two decades are all urban, young individuals under 30-35 years. I‘m quite sure the majority of them now vote the Progress Party, Norway‘s only anti- immigration party. Several statistics indicate that indigenous Europeans in Muslim dominated areas oppose mass Muslim immigration.

Oslo used to be a peaceful city. Thanks to the Norwegian cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regime they have transformed my beloved city into a broken city, a bunkered society, a multiculturalist shit hole where no one is safe anymore, to use blunt language.

The following is an overview of experiences I have had during my youth in Oslo. I‘ve ―only‖ experienced 8 assaults, attempted robberies and multiple threats. I‘ve never actually been severely ravaged, robbed or beaten my Muslims (a broken nose is the worst thing that occurred) but I know more than 20 people who have. I know at least 2 girls that have been raped my Muslims and I am familiar with two more cases in my broader network (1 gang rape). One girl though was cut badly in the face by Muslims. As such, I guess I should feel lucky or privileged. I live in Oslo West far away from the nearest Muslim enclave as more or less all of them are localised on Oslo East. There is little difference in their level of aggressiveness among the various Muslim groups, regardless if they are from Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Morocco or Albania.

I do, however, acknowledge that only a small proportion of Muslims are so called "Jihadi youth" but this argument is defeated by the mere fact that the same thing can be said about the Taliban in Pakistan. The Taliban only makes out 1-3% of the population, yet they have caused a civil war. It is apparent that dhimmitude and a bunkered society is the new reality as long as Islam (and individual Muslims) are allowed to move freely in our societies. Our major cities will remain "broken" as long as multiculturalism is allowed to be the prevalent ideology, as long as cultural Marxists are allowed to set the agenda.

15 years – (when I was 15, time: 20.00) - Attempted robbery by Pakistani gang outside a concert. Luckily for me I knew a hardcore Pakistani thug (from the Pakistani A gang in Oslo) who told them I was under his protection. There have been approximately 10 other threatening situations where me and my friends were unharmed.

16 years – (Time: 16.30) - Assault – an older and much stronger/bigger Pakistani hit me without provocation in front of Majorstuenhuset. Apparently, he wanted to subdue me in front of my "friend" Arsalan who apparently had told him to do it. This concluded, for my part, my friendship with him and I re-connected with my old friends after this incident. However, this restricted my territorial freedoms, as I was no longer under the protection of the Oslo Ummah. From now on we would have to arm ourselves whenever we went to parties in case Muslim gangs showed up and we usually chose to stay in our neighbourhoods‘ on Oslo West.

17 years – (Time: 01.30) - Attempted assault and robbery - Us 2, them 3: 2 Pakistanis and 1 wannabe-Pakistani. We were actually heading home after being on the same party together. The wannabe-Pakistani suddenly turned on me without provocation and rallied the other two. Me and my friend had to run as we were unarmed at the time.

They were robbing (collecting Jizya) and beating local kafr/Norwegian kids at Tåsen center, they had done this on numerous occasions. They didn‘t live there but travelled to Tåsen from a Muslim enclave on Oslo East. I was at a party on Tåsen when we heard they had just beaten one of my friends younger brothers. We went there to chase them away from the neighbourhood. They had weapons, we had weapons. I was hit with a billiard pool in the head. Result of the fight: we made a deal with them, they promised they would never return and harass the Tåsen youngsters again.

18 years – (Time: 01.00) - Assault by Pakistani gang outside a club. A friend of mine was attacked without provocation by a gang of 6. I told him to run as they outnumbered us. Result: broken nose.

19 years – (Time: 02.00) - Attempted robbery by two Pakistanis at a bar. I had my friends nearby so I told them to fuck off or I we would bash their faces in (an effective psychological deterrent, most Pakistani thugs have a Neanderthal mentality so to show weakness will only invite to abuse etc;). Pakistanis are usually a lot more cowardly than Northern African Muslims though (I wouldn‘t have tried that strategy on Moroccans‘).

20 years – (Time: 22.00) - Threats and attempted assault - Us 3, them 4. Me and two friends were about to order at Burger King when a Norwegian girl crossed the food queue. As she went by she pushed me, saying; "MOVE, YOU PIECE OF SHIT!". Needless to say, I was very surprised and I managed to stutter the words; "suck my dick, bitch", while perplexed. She ran over to her friends, 4 Moroccans‘ sitting at a corner and just waiting to pick a fight... They approached me (I was alone at the time) and told me they were going to "fuck me up severely" as soon as I left Burger King. I had tear gas on me, as I always have when going out late. However, I decided to go with the "deterrent strategy", so I called my two friends, Erling, a relatively small adopted Columbian, and his friend a relatively big Christian Ugandan. Having established my deterrent, and obviously not interested in fighting these savages (as is my policy with all Muslim bullies under normal circumstances), I went ahead and started negotiating, offering the "Muslim whore" an apology. End result was, we left as a group and had the Muslims follow us until we managed to lose them. The most annoying things about the encounter is that you really can‘t control when you bump into them again. Luckily, a majority of Muslim savages like them live on the East side of town.

21 years – (Time: 01.30) - Attempted assault and robbery - Us 4, them 4. Me and my best friends; Peter, Marius and Martin were out clubbing and drinking. This was actually the first time I smoked (normal cigarettes) and I fainted for a few seconds outside a store not far from the club. This was the first and only time I have fainted in my life btw, lol. Apparently, 4 Albanian Muslims saw this incident and figured I would make an easy target. All 4 of them approached me and tried to rob me. At that time my friends just arrived and they started to threaten them as well as one of them pulled out a knife.

Obviously, we didn‘t want to fight these savages, so we said we would take out some cash for them in an ATM in the nearby Burger King. We called the police as soon as we entered. However, this was Saturday night so we had no luck getting a response. We ordered some food and stayed at Burger King for a little more than an hour, at which point the Muslim savages had left (probably busy robbing other victims).

While I am not so gullible as to take ABB's autobiography as gospel, it's also obvious that he has neither the literary talent nor the imagination to invent these squalid realities.

Robert Spencer and his ilk also need to face another obvious fact: none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the Koran, "jizya" or no "jizya." I've been relieved of my lunchmoney. Who in America hasn't? I'm pretty sure none of the collectors had any familiarity with the suras whatsoever. This is not Muslim behavior. It is human behavior.

The trouble with Oslo isn't that the Norwegian Workers' Party has imported a Muslim underclass - it's that the Norwegian Workers' Party has imported an underclass. If for whatever reasons they'd chosen their immigrants from Papua New Guinea, perhaps Robert Spencer could have become an expert in penis sheaths, noting that all the offenders had wrapped their junk in banana leaves. Instead of converting them to Christianity, he'd want to convert them to underwear. Perhaps not every population can be civilized; every population can be feralized.

It is impossible to separate Breivik the "hip-hop" Norwigga tagger from Breivik the "Knight Templar." In both we see characteristic fauna of our era, one common and the other rare, both absolutely normal. If you ask a lot of people to be angry about the Bronxification of East Oslo, someone is going to act on it. The goal of trumpeting is to obtain power, and the means of power is violence. To denounce violence is to renounce power. To renounce power is to surrender.

So it simply won't wash for conservatives to describe this act as "senseless" or "random" or "inexplicable," like all those inexplicable liberal-inspired terrorists. (Much if not most black-on-white violence in America is best characterized as terrorism, because it proceeds from military, not avaricious or psychopathic, motives.) Nor will it work to rue injustice but suggest that, like Christ, Christians should turn the other cheek. Christ was Christ, perhaps, but humans are humans. And besides, didn't he bring not peace but a sword?

Rather, a right that seeks to win power must accept that violence is a normal, essential and ineradicable aspect of human psychology, as it accepts every other reality. Fantasy is a luxury the powerless cannot afford. Denouncing violence in general is either supine (if sincere) or mendacious (if insincere), and both are equally fantastic and unaffordable. If you demand power, you are demanding violence, since power constitutes the ability to execute violence. If you are not demanding power, what are you demanding? Why are you even talking?

But there is a difference between right and left - and it's just not that the left is in and the right is out. The right stands for order and the left for chaos. Violence is essential to both - but certainly not the same kind of violence.

The left (hilariously still named the "Norwegian Workers' Party" - they should really update their name to match their clients) brought "A-Gjengen" and "B-Gjengen" to Oslo. And the right? There is no Norwegian right. Just Norwegian gangsters, a C-gang if you will. An ABB knows Oslo needs order, but all he can think to do about it is a spectacular gang massacre - basically a giant drive-by. In his heart he's still a tagger. And a Robert Spencer? Tom Paine with a tame Koran. Leftism has devoured our entire civilization, which exists only in its belly.

Can violence bring order to Oslo? Or to Baltimore? Nothing is more certain. Will it? Well, I hope so. I'm not too optimistic at present. Will it involve the mother of all drive-bys? It most certainly will not.

69 Comments:

"whereas Robert Spencer does not have the right to trumpet his ideas to Anders Behring Breivik. Did he think he had that right? He had not the might, so he had not the right."

I understand that taking an extreme position is actually effective for countering an opposing extreme position, due to making the middle seem less extreme by comparison.

(So, don't judge positions as extreme, just as true or false.)

In fact, Spencer does have that right. However, he can't effectively use it, so it doesn't matter. At this node, there's no difference, but if you start reasoning forward they end up in very different places.

"Until you amass the power to capture the State, refrain from any action whatsoever - certainly including voting. The weak have no right to oppose the strong."

The more often I see an assertion with no support, the more I have to take seriously the idea there is no support.

I also still don't buy that left and right are anything more profound than sects of demotism. If one is more orderly - that isn't an essential feature any more than the trinity is an essential feature of Christianity. For example, both right and left would oppose neocameralism AND ancap. Neither philosophy is left OR right.

Moreover, the left isn't strong. It's just less pathetic than the right.

For example, the police apparently can't afford to allow anti-Muslim gangs to form - the Muslim gangs can't protect themselves.

But it apparently never occurs to the nativist gangs to form covertly.

I find it interesting that the cops are supposedly right wing - you see lots of anti-cop rhetoric from the left - yet are so often used by the left, and are apparently quite happy to be so used.

> It is not wrong, of course, to aspire to power - but action does not create power. Action dissipates power. Until you amass the power to capture the State, refrain from any action whatsoever - certainly including voting. The weak have no right to oppose the strong.

You've never really explained why this is - and I tend to doubt that a powerful explanation would be possible, because I think you're probably wrong.

Nietzsche suggested that powerlessness is demoralizing, and the repeated exercise of even symbolic or negligible power is revitalizing in the face of chronic persecution. That's one reason people do things like street demonstrations, forming societies including secret societies, or comment on a blog like this one.

Moreover, what is not quite the same thing, little episodes of activism condition people to seek political power, by things like proselytization. When you first explained your inactivism, you said you would make no secret of your truly radical lack of faith in the system, but I think you spoke in such a way vaguely (perhaps only implicitly) unfavorable to proselytism. Yet here you are behaving proselytically, having an awesome blog and 'trolling' 2blowhards. Sometimes, petitioning and stuff like that is more about conditioning people to desire activity and efficacy (power), than it is about reaching the stated goal.

Why don't you name the precedents for a movement that 'does nothing' until the day of seizing power, or explain why precedents would be unneeded here. It seems to me that all revolutions had a big base. The end of the USSR depended on a vast base of disaffected people, and a passel of intellectuals who were willing to push criticism farther and farther, moving the wall farther and farther back. The NS revolution had a huge base, electoral and thuggic - of course everyone here knows this. The Weimar revolution 14 years earlier had largely done using the organizational and ideological capital of the preexisting center-left party, as I recall (the SPD?). I watched a six hour movie on the spanish war and forgot almost everything, but I am pretty certain that while the Franco conspiracy was just cooked up rapidly, it already had a vast base that was receptive, created/preserved/furthered by other people and institutions. Bolshevik revolution - large base, long struggle. French revolution - a bushel of philosophs, going back generations, for uppity lawyers and proles to read.

I'm not saying terror action in specific is effective - I really doubt it. But there needs to be some kind of action.

The same stuff you see in the explicit revolutions such as red october or jan 1933, is also seen in the more cryptic, subtle, informal, and cultural revolutions such as the Western 1960s.

One informal revolution that I assume had no movement attached to it was Deng's. I think the leaders just saw that shit was horrible and brought Deng back to rule. They just used logic and their senses, and acted.

> If one is more orderly - that isn't an essential feature any more than the trinity is an essential feature of Christianity.

Exactly. The Oslo street violence we just read about certainly does seem to serve some function for the regime - such as devitalizing White proles who might otherwise have more energy and organizational capital with which to seek a bigger piece of the money/power/gratification pie. But it's not an /indispensable/ function, so you could just clean it up by quadrupling the police force: voila, an 'orderly' Norway in the common sense of the word, but not a rightist one.

Or does 'order' require low illegitimacy rates? Low unemployment? If it does, I think the left is going to counter that 'institutional racism' is disorderly. In this case we have merely papered over the definition problem and watched it crop up elsewhere.

The trumpet is a direct call to war, right? It's use is only to drum soldiers up to charge the enemy line.

Quite a bit different than the pen which was and is being used to construct tomes against Islamic immigration into Western countries. Spencer, Auster, et al have written hundreds of thousands of words to avoid the need for the trumpet.

"But it's not an /indispensable/ function, so you could just clean it up by quadrupling the police force: voila, an 'orderly' Norway in the common sense of the word, but not a rightist one."

And a strong left would probably do almost exactly this, with one exception. They'd outlaw prole organization directly. (A very strong left wouldn't need to bother; they'd just laugh at it.)

They can't. It would be seen as illegitimate. No ruler can survive widespread perceptions of illegitimacy. Instead they must resort to importing ferals. Ironically proving that they don't have much power and thus are illegitimate.

Of course they are responsible for Breivik's terrorism, just as communist intellectuals are responsible for Islamic terrorism.

Now I'm really disappointed. How are Fjordman and Spencer more responsible than you are? They said leftism sucks and one should oppose it with non-violent action. You said demotism sucks and one should oppose it through some sort of Zen opposition by non-opposition (which used to include voting and now definitely proscribes it, which used to ban Gramscian entryism and now strongly hints that that it is Plan A). They have pretty much said Islam ("the cape") is the problem; you have said it's the state, the intellectuals, and the papers ("the bull").

Your recommendations are convoluted, but I don't think they are any less suggestive of anti-left violence than Fjordman & Spencer's. ABB probably thought his violence would set off a wave imitators who would destroy the Cathedral. I doubt he is right but this technically isn't over.

Covert gangs are a contradiction in terms. Secret societies and conspiracies are one thing, but if you wish to gain the social leverage that belonging to a gang grants, it must be known that a) the gang exists, b) you belong to it, c) it has extended to you its power, protection and influence, and d) that power, protection and influence are significant and should be taken seriously by external actors. If any of these things fail the gang has failed in its purpose.

This is why belonging to the Chess Club is not helpful when the local bully-boys decide to screw with you. (It's failure mode D: its power, protection and influence are insufficient to oppose the threat.)

this is some incoherent shit. the constant whining about chomsky ... if you're flattening out everything to a plane of power, with "progressivism" (or whatever you're calling it this week) in the dense center and various antithetical counter-ideologies fluttering around it in the outer rings -- then what's the difference between OBL and breivik? they're clearly on the same team, at opposite ends of the bench. in addition, OBL represents a much more elegant and logical shock wave -- a clear imperial return of the repressed. identical with breivik, though, is the choice of targets: the privileged subjects of rationalistic-legalistic violence, whose stability on every level -- economic to psychic -- is completely dependent on repression of the very violence which ensures it.

your persistent lack of proper conceptual distinctions between "left" and "liberalism," and your denial of the links between the latter and what you call the "right," (especially in the US), is turning your blog into junkfood

What else do you call selecting targets mostly 15-16 years old? You can't get any stupider than that. Presumably he has very low socio-psychological intelligence - and his face is not inconsistent with that. Obviously his IQ, O, and ego strength are very high.

Excuse me fellas, but the Trinity is necessary for Christianity; and not only necessary but vital. It’s the one dogmatic assertion that contains all others. For if Christ is not really and truly the Son of God, then Christianity is nothing but a fable. If Christianity is not a fable (as it must at any rate assert), then Christ must be a divine person. Divinity itself cannot be divided, for unity is one of the divine attributes. Therefore the God-man, Jesus Christ, must be consubstantial with the Father. And if the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Father and Son, then Sacred Scripture, not to mention the God-man Himself, has lied to us. Since God does not lie, the Holy Ghost does so proceed.

If any of these truths be denied, then Christianity can mean anything one wants it to mean, up to and including the disavowal of Christ’s divinity, at which point it becomes mere panache to go on calling oneself a Christian. It’s beginning to look awfully Trinitarian around here, and the Trinity awfully necessary.

Chomsky's connection to OBL is a hell of lot dimmer than ABB's connection to Spencer.

OBL said this about Chomsky in 2007 -- I'd say it's a pretty direct connection.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/09/obl_transcript.php

"This war was entirely unnecessary, as testified to by your own reports. And among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn't like those who give advice."

@Matt Beck- God giving a rat's ass is a prerequisite for Christianity, and I have a hard time with that one.

@TGGP- I was watching one of those MSNBC prison shows awhile ago, and they were interviewing a kidnapper-robber-murderer. He didn't say he did it because he felt like it; he justified his actions by saying he did it to get money for his kids. Some basic kind of morality is innate to all but the insane.

My goodness. What happened to the intelligent commenters who used to post in response to periodic episodes of Moldbuggery? Are you people new? You see, if you disagree with an argument or statement, it is helpful if you advance a logical, systematic reason. Just choking out, effectively, "I disagree," as many of you seem to have managed, doesn't impress the rest of us.

There's an archive, you know. If you'd like to catch up. Perhaps then you could at least state your disagreements with some kind of argumentative and literary style.

Both Chomsky and bin Laden are critics of American power. If your model of the world is so constricted that you think that puts them on the same side, well, OK, have it your way. You people are scum and if you want to be stupid as well, it's no problem for me.

Moldbug and Chomsky have a lot in common, it seems to me. They're both Jewish, both fairly smart (obviously Chomsky is a couple of orders of magnitude more intellectually accomplished), and both have this habit of mercilessly following up the logic of their political precepts to conclusions that normal people find revolting (Chomsky: Bush is worse than bin Laden; Moldbug: shooting up a teenage summer camp is a valid political act).

If you apply your logical facilities you can realize that a political regime can justify anything.

In the future there could be a fascist regime in Norway that honors Breivik as its founding hero, as is his wet dream.

The difficult questions are not whether he is repugnant in our society, but rather, why should disaffected, angry people who agree with his principles nonetheless reject his methods? And are people who agreed publicly with his principles allowed to disclaim any moral responsibility for these murders?

And yes, neither Chomsky nor Mencius takes any opinion off the table. If you don't like these uncomfortable questions you are free to leave.

Apparently you're far more comfortable, more in your element, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you have a 'logos' for that, as they used to say, an account? I'm not saying I do.

It could well be that Mencius is being a little glib about a thing or three (war = terror, terror = war; Auster is 'responsible')... but I bet these things are not as simple as you are imagining they are. If you can't give an account, but are just going with whatever's popular, then how do you have a right to be so cheesed off?

How many of our civvies do you think the Japs wasted? And how many did they give wrenching, lingering illnesses to, which probably amount pretty much to two weeks or two months of mid to high grade torture, maybe more?

Just call me Socrates. It's really fun to ask the questions rather than put forth one's answers - put forth oneself. Do I have more answers than you? I really don't think you've shown that you have more than Mencius.

For a guy that feels burned out, you write pretty well. It's always a pleasure to find a new post in Reader.

In response to your (deleted?) post about lacking inspiration, I just wanted to mention that I really appreciated a comment thread you participated in about historical crime rates and how people used to leave their cars unlocked (verified with my mother, born in '39).

Apparently blog writers hate nothing so much as someone suggesting topics so I won't go further. Suffice to say that it interests me personally and ties directly into the Oslo situation.

These latest posts by Mencius are some of his best yet. He's the only blogger in the alt-right that (1) makes sense on the issue, and; (2) hasn't been a gigantic beta-faggot and gone into crisis management mode.

The camp and island is considered the "spiritual homeland" of Norway's left.

So yeah, not your run of the mill camp.

If any of these truths be denied, then Christianity can mean anything one wants it to mean

lolwat, dude the trinity contains a paradox in itself, which means it follows by explosion that Christianity can have any sort of wacky bullshit added to its 'axioms'. Take your proto-Communist utopian rants someplace else. Christianity is part of the problem that led us here in the first place.

I don't want to be "that guy", but is anyone else getting an intuition that something isn't quite right about the whole Ander's saga?

The guy had next to no internet footprint pre-attack (only on right wing related sites, you can use google temporal search to check). He also published a diary on stormfront in the months before hand. He didn't even write the majority of his ebook. It's mostly cut and paste from other sources. His facebook and twitter were made in the days before the operation. Even his tweet was a paraphrase of Mill's quote. Nothing of his seems to be his own, it's nearly everyone else's.

I mean shit, he ran a business for god's sake. He was also supposedly a business student, and a freemason. So you have these seemingly contradictory viewpoints: a guy (supposedly a loner) who was involved in fairly social activities (how do you become a freemason without social contacts?), yet he's completely off the radar for nearly ten years then BAM, here he is.

Targets of opportunity? Remember, a major government personage was supposed to be there and canceled at the last minute. He may have believed that the odds of getting caught were too high to allow a new operation, and just decided to do what he could.

So far as I can tell from machine-translated writings and what I think I know about his actions, he is not highly *educated* but he is not *stupid.* Just from some of the WoW stuff he claims to have done, he has to have a certain level of mental acuity. High-end raiding is NOT something dull people can do successfully. (And if he can *lead* raids, at least in some contexts he has social intelligence. You literally cannot believe what a shitfest an endgame WoW raid is if the raid leaders don't know what they're doing and can't make the other players perform.)

And he apparently did multiple tests on his explosive plans, which indicates a certain level of foresight. (Remember that the most successful bombing the Weathermen carried out was against themselves, and they were an educated pack of fools.)

To carry one thing over from the previous thread: whining about abuses suffered by whites under multiculti regimes is indeed "beta," but it does serve a purpose.

The left's governing narrative is dependent on various forms "white guilt" being accepted and internalized by Europeans. This narrative is reinforced by a constant stream of official news of racism this, racism that.

Whining about abuse at the hand of supposedly oppressed minorities calls this official narrative into question, ultimately delegitimising it. Just as old Communist narratives of workers paradise were debunked in people's minds.

When the official narrative becomes uncredible, the citizens, and eventually the ruling class itself, shifts into the mode of just going through the motions with the whole business, a prerequisite to its eventual collapse.

Like they say on game blogs, the trick is to do the right mix of alpha and beta.

page 290 However, if the Muslim population of the UK were to continue growing at an annual rate of 6.7 per cent (as it did between 2004 and 2008), its share of the total UK population would rise from just under 4 per cent in 2008 to 8 per cent in 2020, to 15 per cent in 2030 and to 28 per cent in 2040, finally passing 50 per cent in 2050.

note 95 on page 345Calculated from figures in the UK Labour Force Survey and the United Nations Population Prospects middle projection. see also ' Muslim Population "Rising 10 Times Faster than Rest of Society" ' , The Times, 30 January 2009.

"These latest posts by Mencius are some of his best yet. He's the only blogger in the alt-right that (1) makes sense on the issue, and; (2) hasn't been a gigantic beta-faggot and gone into crisis management mode."

This. So it's not just talk. He doesn't just read Carlyle et al., he thinks that way too. Impressive. If only ABB had found UR.

I know you like it:"Yes, the Masonic Lodges were key to the circulation of the ideas that became the French Revolution against which all three of Gaullism, the non-Gaullist French Right and the non-Marxist French Left are to many extents ongoing reactions. Yes, the Masonic Lodges have been organisational bases of attacks on the Church and Her interests in the Latin world ever since. And yes, the Masonic Lodges were key to the circulation of the ideas against which the several States had to demand that the First Amendment to the American Constitution protect their respective Established Churches.

But while Freemasonry has been, and to some extent remains, part of petty anti-Catholicism in this country (it was, for example, why Catholics found it so difficult to secure promotion while working for the Consett Iron Company), it is impossible to imagine a band of men less likely to conspire to overthrow the economic, social, cultural and political order, simply because it is impossible to imagine a band of men which better epitomises the economic, social, cultural and political order.

To them was and is addressed the message, formulated while he was still an Anglican clergyman, of Fr Walton Hannah, who had no time for lurid Masonic conspiracy theories: it was precisely because the original Masonic rituals in this country had drawn heavily on the Book of Common Prayer, itself drawn heavily from Medieval and earlier sources, but had later been redacted to exclude expressions of orthodox Trinitarian and Christological doctrine, that they were now unconscionable to those who continued to adhere to that orthodoxy. That argument is unanswerable.

And what of the far more politicised Freemasonry of the Continent and of its former Empires? The only recent example of a conspiracy of that kind has been in Italy, and it consisted precisely in the P2 Lodge's support for the Far Right. But then, of course it did. The Far Right is the continuation of that which overthrew the old, organic, Catholic states of the Italian Peninsula (and the old, organic, often Catholic states of German-speaking Europe) in precisely the spirit of the French Revolution, in precisely the spirit of the attacks on the Church and Her interests ever since, and in precisely the spirit against which the several States had to demand that the First Amendment to the American Constitution protect their respective Established Churches.

The discussion of this event has been an orgy of guilt by association. It should be evident that the vast majority of people who either:

a) read right-wing blogs, orb) favor immigration restriction, orc) own firearms and hunt, ord) are freemasons, ore) feel uneasy about Islam, orf) share any number of other characteristics with Breivik,

are not mass murderers, nor are they likely to become mass murderers.

When Nidal Malik Hasan shot up Ft. Hood, or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab secreted explosives in his skivvies to try to blow up an airliner; when Faisal Shahzad attempted to bomb Times Square, or Mohamed Osman Mohamud tried to bomb the Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon; or when Farooque Ahmed plotted to bomb the DC Metro subway system, the punditocracy assured us that these people were not typical Muslims. Islam, they told us, was a "religion of peace," and we were admonished not to judge its adherents by a few lone nut-cases.

How different it is now. Finally, someone has acted in the way the chattering classes have constantly expressed the fear that someone enflamed by right-wing thought might do. Such a 'meme' was floated, but didn't catch on in the case of Jared Loughner. Now that Breivik has obligingly provided a 1,500-page screed to prove his right-wing bona fides, the intelligentsia have got the bit in their teeth and are off at full gallop.

I'm always amazed at the number of leftists who bemoan "McCarthyism," but seem to be amongst the most proficient practitioners of its main rhetorical tactic.

The Stratfor e-mail newsletter recently tried to connect Breivik's mass murders with "the rise of far-right parties in Europe." It would be more to the point to note that in European countries where there actually are so-called far-right parties that favor immigration restrictions, there has not been any episode comparable to Breivik's rampage. Norway is distinct in NOT having such a party, as (for example) nearby Finland, Denmark, or Holland do.

Bloody actions like Breivik's are the logical consequence of stifling free discussion. Actions begin when words fail. The characteristic of politically-correct multiculturalism is to stigmatize the peaceful expression of certain opinions. Words like "racism," "sexism," and "homophobia" are intended not to facilitate debate, but to end it by identifying the utterer of an argument as a Bad Person. This conveniently relieves his accuser of any actual need to rebut that argument. The effect of political correctness is to banish even the acknowledgment of such arguments from polite society.

Bruce Bawer, who can best be described as a moderate liberal (he voted for Clinton in 1992), but sceptical of the positions of the hard left, wrote an interesting book in 2006 entitled "While Europe Slept." Bawer, who is homosexual, moved with his lover to Norway in order to avail himself of the civil partnership allowed under Norwegian law. His book is mainly about the Islamic influx into European countries, but also presents a good picture of the politically-correct attitudes that prevail in places like Norway and Holland.

A reading of Bawer's book gives one the impression that Norway is, for all its vaunted tolerance, a society in which there is a great pressure to conform to established norms of belief and behavior. In Ibsen's day, the norms were those of an austere Lutheran pietism; today, that has been replaced by the pieties of political correctness (a sort of secular puritanism), but the pressure to conform, and the social sanction for non-conformity, is still as rigid as that depicted in "An Enemy of the People."

Given this, Breivik may very well see himself in the role of Dr. Stockmann - "the strongest man in the world is the man who stands most alone." There seems to be something peculiarly Norwegian about what he has done.

Where exactly did Mr. Moldbug say Fjordman and Spencer are more responsible than he is? - John Bonaccorsi

My bad. I only assumed that's the way he felt because if not, a lot of what he's saying doesn't make any sense. If he feels responsible for instigating Breivik's utterly illegitimate violence, I had figured he would sounded at least a note of contrition.

Why would you expect Mr. Moldbug to be contrite? Is that what he's criticizing Fjordman and Spencer for? For not being contrite? Quite the opposite. He's criticizing them -- calling them pathetic -- for being, in effect, contrite, i.e., for distancing themselves, in panic, from action that was a predictable result of their writing, even if they didn't urge, advocate, or incite it.

The calculus of Anders Behring Breivik is that of "propaganda of the deed"; as it was once called by the anarchists. This is a rational calculus: Deeds attract attention. The bigger the crime, the greater the attention. People are compelled to read the writings of the perpetrators, to deal with their arguments.

The killer in Norway has written a pamphlet that would have gone unnoticed if he had not committed these murders. Now it is read and discussed worldwide. From his perspective - that of a ruthless criminal - he has achieved his goal.

It is not different with terrorist gangs and with Al-Qaeda: the crime compels attention. And always there will be enough people who think: That wrong they cannot really be those people. Possibly they approve not of their actions, but their writings have found attention. The propaganda of the deed functions, it is politically rational.

A second, equally important factor is the influence of the political spectrum. Political criminals are all extremists, people who stand with their views on the very edge. By making known their extremist views by their propaganda of the deed, they move the political spectrum.

Psychologists call this an anchor effect. When there comes a much more extreme flow, movements that have been viewed before as extremist now sway in the eyes of the general perception a little towards the middle. With their propaganda of the deed the terrorists affect the entire political system of reference, just by an anchor effect.

Since these latest blog entries seem to be attracting the dimwits that couldn't be bothered reading through Moldbug's past posts (and then making claims about him being pro-violence and other silly bullshit) ... here again are the main jumping points into Moldbug's writings:

I would note that Breivik's action was not merely propaganda of the deed. His killing of the so-called children at that camp was destruction of the Labour Party's up-and-coming leaders. He was thinking long term -- or, at least, little-bit-longer term.

I remember news footage of an American pilot who gleefully described one of his bombing runs during the First Gulf War: "Baghdad was lit up like a Christmas tree," said he, all smiles. I wonder whether Osama bin Laden was watching that -- and I wonder where that pilot was a decade later, as we all watched the World Trade Center collapse.

The young Americans who celebrated excitedly in the streets the night bin Laden was killed will possibly live to hear from bin Laden's many offspring, who, as far as we know, America's military has not touched.

There is no Norwegian right. Just Norwegian gangsters, a C-gang if you will. An ABB knows Oslo needs order, but all he can think to do about it is a spectacular gang massacre - basically a giant drive-by. In his heart he's still a tagger.

Criminals will occassionally claim some high motive in hopes that this will appeal to their audience and they'll get better treatment, but often enough they'll admit they act on entirely base motives. Much of rap is practically a celebration of the crassest materialism and willingness to harm others. I can't think of a politically correct way for thugs to, say, beat the shit out of their girlfriends, but of course that doesn't stop countless perfectly sane (if stupid, impulsive, and low on conscientiousness) examples from doing so.

Bin Laden name-dropped Chomsky's opposition to the Iraq war. Breivik plagiarized most of his manifesto. Interestingly enough, in the link Mencius updated his previous post with we can further see the differing perspectives of OBL and Chomsky. Jonathon Narvey notes that Chomsky avows America is still the greatest nation on earth, but because its his government he feels the responsibility to criticize it, the "pro-American anti-American". OBL, on the other hand, calls America vampire^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the worst civilization in history. He'll throw a lot of feces against the wall in hopes some of it sticks, and reach for left-smelling turds like Kyoto if it suits his purposes. But while Chomsky complains that multinational corporations don't operate democratically, OBL says democracy itself needs to be junked (of course along with toleration of homosexuality and women's "liberation"). His preferred form of government dates back to the seventh century. Now I've played down the merits of a left-vs-right dichotomy, particularly for societies distant from the French Revolution, even stating that sufficiently advanced reaction is indistinguishable from radicalism, but if you wanted to stick to the conventional view OBL would be closer to right-wing extremism.

I mentioned anti-communism, and I won't limit myself to OBL as the only Islamist, but I might as well start with him. Wikisource has a number of his missives, and the problem of communists/socialists (Nasser's Egypt and independent Algeria seem to be included) and the requirement that Muslims kill them is a common theme. Communists played a significant role in fomenting the Iranian revolution, but they were completely purged once the Islamists were firmly in power. The Iranian clergy in 1953 (who may not have had fully islamist views, but close enough) supported the overthrow of Mossadegh. Within Pakistan there are secular/socialist People's Parties (Benazhir Bhutto's was a member of the Socialist International), with their chief rivals generally being the Muslim League or other islamic parties. Musharraf of course had supported the Afghan Taliban and continued to support islamist terrorist groups despite his purported alliance with the U.S, and they returned the favor by killing Bhutto. Islamista and militarists also allied in one of the greatest communist purges, Suharto's in Indonesia.

Michael, there may overall be a negative correlation between far-right parties and the lack of lone whackos, but Hans van Themsesche prevents you from making any absolute statements.

Of course, now I have to level a similar charge to Mencius vis a vis Chomsky/OBL.

While I think OBL fits MM's definition of leftist, and so I'm willing to let that pass, I was basically going to ignore the details of his Chomsky link until I saw evidence.

Still, Islam is relevant to us only in its capacity as the left's tool. They have no power in the west, aside from being Mutt. Is Chomsky specifically a Jeff? Well, I don't know. I'd have to care about OBL or Chomsky to find out if they're linked. (That OBL cared enough to read Chomsky is a point in MM's favour, though.) In any case the trumpeter metaphor stands.

One consequence is that OBL's thoughts about communists don't matter. Communists seem quite happy to use him regardless.

The rap thing I'll buy. And I certainly know about other examples where true lowlife scum revel in their felony.

Most need excuses, though. For example, surely you're familiar with, "Bitch deserved it." Wife beaters regularly try to justify. (Moreover, the relationship often depends on the beating. "Many of my violently abused women patients have told me that they find nonviolent men intolerably indifferent and emotionally distant, rage being the only emotion they've ever seen a man express.") Similarly, it's common to start believing one's own lies after a while. Even if Islam is a rationalization - and I don't care either way - there's again, a clear line between acceptable targets and civilians. Even in rap, there's a clear out-group and in-group, however tiny the latter is.

alrenous, your comments magnificently add up to shit on a rusty spoon.

glenn beck compared the utoya island dead to a "hitler youth" contingent. so, using moldbug's own logic, in one swoop he's become a far more courageous defender of the royalist prerogative than either fjordman, the sleestak spencer, moldbug himself, you, or a million other specimens of blogma.

how could one even argue that beck's comments are not EXACTLY what moldbug means, when he talks about state and government and telos and stuff, in his own, special way

Now I've played down the merits of a left-vs-right dichotomy, particularly for societies distant from the French Revolution,

Agreed. Not every faction in history fits into the modern left-right paradigm. How would one classify the Orthodox Church's confrontation with Rome during the Great Schism using the post-1789 political spectrum? Was the Orthodox Church the liberal or conservative faction?

I could go with 'conservative' on this one. All forms of modern radicalism, progressiveism, liberalism, rationalism grew up in the soil of Western, Latin Christiaity. It's a commonplace to note that Islam never had a Renaissance or enlightenment; well, neither did Eastern Christianity.

Orthodox like Dostoievski or Dmitry Merezhkovsky were always suspicious of Roman Catholics for the same reason Catholics were suspicicious of Protestants - because they opned the door to worse heresies.

I seem to remember a remark of Dostoievski that it was sometimes hard to tell a Catholic from Protestant from an atheist.

> All forms of modern radicalism, progressiveism, liberalism, rationalism grew up in the soil of Western, Latin Christiaity. It's a commonplace to note that Islam never had a Renaissance or enlightenment; well, neither did Eastern Christianity.

The thing is I see a lot of racial difference there. If you could experimentally start Russia off on protestantism and Holland England France on E orthodoxy, my bet would be on the racial tendencies still shining through eventually.

I agree with RS. Consider that Eastern Orthodoxy (and later Islam) ended up with all of the more anciently settled and better civilised parts of the old Roman empire: Greece, Asia Minor, the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, Egypt, Syria, etc. Western Christendom (Roman Catholicism and later Protestantism) ended up with what had been the backwaters.

Yet, apart from the brief flourishing of "Islamic science" under the Abbasids (which was in reality mostly the survival of ancient Greek science, and which had as its main expositors the men of Harran, who were largely non-Muslims - e.g., Thebit ben Corath), the former Roman empire of the East did nothing with this rich heritage. It was in the West that the real intellectual ferment took place.

When, in the fifteenth century, Greek scholars (e.g., Bessarion) from Byzantium came to Italy, and when Cosimo dei Medici began collecting Greek manuscripts, and having them translated, this ancient knowledge, which had slumbered for centuries in the East, flowered into the Renaissance once planted in the fertile soil of Italy. Thence it spread to the Low Countries, France, Germany, England, and points beyond - begetting the modern world.

I could go with 'conservative' on this one. All forms of modern radicalism, progressiveism, liberalism, rationalism grew up in the soil of Western, Latin Christiaity.

The Orthodox Church split with Rome over doctrinal issues regarding the authority of the Pope, not because the Eastern Church mistrusted Rome's conservatism.

Regarding the retardation of Eastern Europe's development since they adopted Greek Christianity, I doubt their history could be explained by differences in terms of different racial/population traits.

For one thing, Slavs North of the Balkans have more Scandinavian DNA* in them than the Germans do (the Germans appear to have more Southern European admixture than Slavs do, which makes sense considering how they are so close to France and Italy).

But despite the fact Slavs have so much Scandinavian/Baltic admixture, the Russians have always had a much more chaotic existence than the stable (even before the 19th century) than Russians did for centuries.

I also note that the Slavic portions of Eastern and Central Europe which were ruled by the Holy Roman Empire prospered under German aristocratic governance for centuries, which indicates a governmental, not genetic factor was keeping the substantially Scandinavian Slavs backwards for so long.

Another cultural explanation for Easter Europe's backwardness is the fact Eastern Europe never enjoyed a centralizing governing force like Western Europe did during the Dark Ages. Throughout the Dark Ages, Europe's most powerful (and transnational) political authority was the Catholic Church. Thanks to Rome's centralizing influence, Western Europe was better able to organize itself going into the Medieval Ages than was Eastern Europe because the seat of Orthodox Christianity, was under siege from Islam. After the fall of Byzantium, the Eastern Orthodox churches were not able to provide a centralizing governmental force for Eastern Europe because the Patriarchs were not answering to a single, autocratic, religious authority equal to what the Vatican was able to exert for almost two thousand years.

Under better governance, there is no reason why the Slavs shouldn't be able to prosper.

I'm a little reluctant to believe that North Slavs are more Norse than Germans are, but maybe it's true. Personally I lack the curiosity to dig into it.

It could be that some of the relevant differences emanate from the older stocks of Germany and Slavland, already present at the time of the Norse (ie Germanic) expansion. Then too there is the possibility of evolution subsequent to the Norse expansion, or of differences between Norse subpops that expanded in different directions.

> I also note that the Slavic portions of Eastern and Central Europe which were ruled by the Holy Roman Empire prospered under German aristocratic governance for centuries, which indicates a governmental, not genetic factor was keeping the substantially Scandinavian Slavs backwards for so long.

The thing is, that is typical to one degree or another of all lower-C pops subjected to higher-C colonization and administration. To take an extreme example, a Black man produces way more in Rhodesia than he does in Zimbabwe, perhaps four or even six times more. If 10 million Germans colonized Russia right now, it would soon become 1.7 to 2.5x more productive, but obviously the Russians prefer things the way they are. (And rightly so, since the Germans have a higher capacity for destructive kulturbolshie folly.) The main reason is that the Germans would basically become planners and managers; they would work harder at planning and look farther ahead and do considerably better, and as managers they would provide a more honest incentive structure for their subordinates. They would also help create a better police force and criminal justice system.

Also, there is a behavioral cline from Western Germany and Norseland, to Eastern Germany, to Poland, to Russia. So the Holy Roman Empire or Austrian Empire would've been less successful in getting Russians to produce wealth than they were with Czechs or whatever. Russia's actual economic value-add really is very low, far lower than her GDP, though I'm not sure quite what exactitude of info is publicly available. A big fraction of her income comes out the ground, probably most of it - unlike EU, USA, etc.

Slavs, especially Russians are tougher under adversity, and are much less trusting both for good and for ill. They're much less susceptible to all sorts of inane and childish follies, most especially anti-traditional, anti-natural ones. Slavic and German art on the other hand show exactly equal attainment, as does Baltic art, though some of the finest Slavic jewels are less than famous in the Atlantic world, such as Szukalski, or Tarkovskij's "Mirror". Though the attainment or value is the same, the natures of these national art canons are diverse probably for racial as well as cultural reasons.

It's kind of hard to show that all this is in their nature as opposed to a product of environments. There are large deposits of rather pure Norse and Italians abroad, namely in the US, who act quite Norse or Italian respectively. But there aren't any large pure pops of Germans or Poles or Russians abroad, that I know of.

I guess one thing I can say is that every single large, rather pure abroad-pop that I know of acts a heck of lot like the source pop, as long as it is a representative sample. (Eg, Hindus in America and England are highly unrepresentative, to the point of being a bit smarter than the Whites; Muslims in America are much less representative than those in Europe are.) Whether it's Japs in Peru, Bantoids in England, or American-born NE Asian friends of mine with their filial piety and slightly lower extroversion, peoples kind of are who they are. Though of course there can be a few major differences, for example two pops of the same stock will not be equally violent or traditionalist if one is much more wealthy than the other.

So I'm guessing the same would hold for Russians or Germans if they had pure, representative populations abroad. I would be really surprised if they bucked the rule in a big way.

Krauts are famous for not crossing against the light, on foot, in the rain at 4 AM. It's a kind of neuroticism that made them take so swimmingly to industrial production and scientific research where you'll waste your effort if you aren't perfectly careful on each of 20 steps - and that also makes them susceptible to preposterous PC. A Russian, even a Russian woman, feels total contempt and nausea for PC (or more broadly, New Left) panties-in-a-twist-ing. She just can't understand it, and she feels no end of 'Roman', 'master-morality' disgust for it... just as you and I now do, after endless reading and deep contemplation, only Russians were already like that at age five and at age ten, fifteen, twenty. On the other hand Russian life is completely uninhibited, selfish toward the stranger, and chaotic.

The larger context for the event is the slow death of western civilization. Almost all the countries who belong to western civilization have fertility rates below replacement and also they have massive population replacement programs in place. Other civilization/cultures don't have this problem and they are alive and growing.Western elites know that and they welcome it. The future of Western Europe is Islam.

RS wrote=============================If 10 million Germans colonized Russia right now, it would soon become 1.7 to 2.5x more productive, but obviously the Russians prefer things the way they are. (And rightly so, since the Germans have a higher capacity for destructive kulturbolshie folly.) The main reason is that the Germans would basically become planners and managers; they would work harder at planning and look farther ahead and do considerably better, and as managers they would provide a more honest incentive structure for their subordinates=====================Germans tried to colonize Russia in WWII and it didn't work out. German planning and management was piss poor. Germans controlled massive European industrial base and lost the tech heavy war against weak Soviet industrial base

Well, the conquered industrial base in France and Benelux got something like half its power from British coal, pre-war. Predictably enough the Limeys no longer felt like sending the coal over to the new NS France-Benelux. As I recall France-Benelux was not all that underpowered energywise at the beginning of Barbarossa, but it became much less repletely powered quarter by quarter. Germany had at least some unused coal production possibilities, but the whole Axis machine was more and more short of food and men. Coal miners were lightheaded on short rations and not producing so great. USSR shipped most food and other useful things back from the front of the NS advance, or destroyed it.

The Russian arms weren't really that shoddy overall, and the Russians were just tougher, willing to absorb 7:1 kill ratios or whatever and keep going anyway. Russians are the toughest and meanest men in Europe, along with maybe the Balkanids. I think the whole tech & economic base gap was worse in the Crimean War and especially WWI, than it was in the Napoleonic or Second World wars. When the tech & econ gap is not too wide, the toughness gap is hard to overcome - more especially when the Russians are on the defensive, since they will scorched-earth everything whatever the cost.

I understand that in the first war the Russian forces ran clean out of essentials around 1916 - I don't know if it was ammo or food or what. That's the only reason they folded up like a cheap suit, which they had not done up to that point in time - and I think it's practically the only reason they ever would do. In the second war, while their food surplus at the beginning of barbarossa was not very large (that's exactly why Hitler planned on killing 10s of millions of urban Soviets, he wanted the food they would otherwise eat) - they didn't run clean out of anything. They did of course have some economic-industrial help from the Atlantic powers, the cruciality of which is debated.

RS wrote==========================Well, the conquered industrial base in France and Benelux got something like half its power from British coal, pre-war. Predictably enough the Limeys no longer felt like sending the coal over to the new NS France-Benelux. As I recall France-Benelux was not all that underpowered energywise at the beginning of Barbarossa, but it became much less repletely powered quarter by quarter. Germany had at least some unused coal production possibilities, but the whole Axis machine was more and more short of food and men. Coal miners were lightheaded on short rations and not producing so great. USSR shipped most food and other useful things back from the front of the NS advance, or destroyed it.==========================If Germans were good planners and managers during WWII they could prioritize and effectively use huge industrial capabilities of all the conquered countries. Soviet industrial base was very weak comparedjust to German industrial base, but if you take into account Czechoslovakia, France and all other countries, thenSoviet industrial power becomes tiny.

RS wrote==========================The Russian arms weren't really that shoddy overall, and the Russians were just tougher, willing to absorb 7:1 kill ratios or whatever and keep going anyway. ==========================Soviet union outproduced Germany in terms of tanks, planes, artillery etc, which tells us that Germans sucked at planning and management

RS==========================Russians are the toughest and meanest men in Europe, along with maybe the Balkanids.==========================You can be tough all you want, but if you have just rifles and your enemy has tanks, machine guns, artillery,and so on, then you are going to lose. It's impossible to win a tech-heavy war without tech

Breivik was engaged in a drive-by motivated by his personal history and still-street-mentality, and Robert Spencer made him do it? I don't think so. I agree that Breivik is street, but you can't be a trumpeter unless you are trumpeting, which Spencer is not.

Saying that Spencer is responsible via the trumpeter analogy is like saying (apologies to Twain) that mothers of soldiers are fair game in war because they told their sons to come back safe and sound.

Flame away; I'm not a regular reader, I'm quite conventionally liberal, and I know no history whatsoever.

"Violence is a normal, essential and ineradicable aspect of human psychology" -- I have my doubts about that. A minority of people ever engage in any kind of violence, either criminal or military. It is very hard to get soldiers to fire their weapons because human instinct is to avoid killing; we only got around that with 20th century training techniques. The number of deaths through all kinds of violence (war, crime, execution) has been falling over time globally, as countries industrialize. It's not inconceivable that as standards of living increase, we simply value life more and think of any death as more of a tragedy.

Most people *aren't* violent. And very few women are.

It's just that the minority of people who can effectively use violence can control all the rest of us. But they are basically not normal. And I don't understand why any normal people have sympathy for violent people. NOBODY who has the capacity for violence is your friend. All you can do is build a better bulletproof door.

You're kidding right? I must have missed the part in ABB's essay about the ethnic Norwegian rapes, beatings, and gangs. ABB tells of widespread beatings and robberies, ALL of it concentrated among Muslims, and you say it's just "human" behavior.

More like "Muslim" behavior with a little bit of an "indigenous" brown shirt presence financed by the Labour Party.